Author
Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency? (Read 301125 times)

So you're saying that you support ending social security survivor benefits?

Many of the non-government benefits of marriage are available to private parties via contract, but contracts are expensive and complicated and marriage is cheap and easy. I think it is still discriminatory to make gay couples fight through mountains of paperwork to secure rights that are automatically granted to straight people. That's not really "equal" is it?

And as we've already established, there are many government rights that gay couples simply cannot reproduce privately at any cost. Social security survivor benefits are just one good example, but I'm sure you can think of some of the others.

So you're saying that you support ending social security survivor benefits?

Many of the non-government benefits of marriage are available to private parties via contract, but contracts are expensive and complicated and marriage is cheap and easy.

You may be right that under current law, there are certain distinctive advantages to a state-licensed marriage that cannot be replicated through private contract and other private legal devices. However, you frequently like to assert that "changing the law" is something that can be done "pretty easily". Applying that proposition here, you can conclude only that the fact that marriage currently confers certain legal benefits does not constitute a principled argument in favour of maintaining the concept of state-licensed marriages, since that law can be changed "pretty easily".

Many of the non-government benefits of marriage are available to private parties via contract, but contracts are expensive and complicated and marriage is cheap and easy. I think it is still discriminatory to make gay couples fight through mountains of paperwork to secure rights that are automatically granted to straight people. That's not really "equal" is it?

It's obvious that if state-licensed marriages are going to exist, they should be open to all on an equal basis, and in particular there shouldn't be any gender-based restrictions on entering into a marriage. However, the more difficult question, and the one raised by the earlier poster, is whether state-licensed marriages should exist at all. You have not yet articulated an argument as to why they should exist, other than an argument that you yourself would reject in any other context.

The removal of gender-based restrictions has made marriage a more equal institution, but it still meets the needs of only relatively privileged individuals (people in stable dyadic relationships), and more importantly, it remains unclear whether marriage is an institution that should exist in a free society. Marriage is an historically deeply patriarchal institution basically rooted in the transfer of women as property. Legally, it no longer serves that function today in the United States and Canada, but it's difficult to deny that many of the social conventions, and even some of the default legal rules, associated with marriage developed in that historical context. And more importantly, once we are free from the historical context, it's unclear what affirmative societal benefit is advanced by the existence of state-licensed marriages.

In a free society, people should be left to arrange their interpersonal relationships as they see fit, without the need for the state to privilege one particular form of relationship over any other.

The argument that "contracts are expensive and complicated and marriage is cheap and easy" is counter-factual. The large volume of statutory and case law dealing with marriage demonstrates that marriage is neither cheap, nor easy. In fact, marriage involves a large array of complex legal issues. A private contract may actually be far simpler because it can contain only provisions that are relevant to the parties, rather than importing all of the hundreds of years of law regarding marriages, and it can prescribe mechanisms for dispute resolution that are far less expensive than litigation (such as specifying pre-determined outcomes for certain issues, and supplying an arbitration procedure for certain claims). I am not convinced that contracts are more expensive, or more difficult, than marriage, other than the fact that the current legal order privileges marriages in certain ways that cannot be replicated via contract (which, again, you would say can be changed "pretty easily").

« Last Edit: November 15, 2016, 07:40:29 PM by Cathy »

Logged

This post contains only general information on the issues raised by this topic. This post does not provide help tailored to your specific situation. There are many facts that could be relevant to your specific situation and I am not in possession of those facts. If you need help tailored to your specific situation, you should retain an appropriate professional and not rely on this post.

You may be right that under current law, there are certain distinctive advantages to a state-licensed marriage that cannot be replicated through private contract and other private legal devices.

That was the whole point about social security's survivor benefits. Only a legal spouse can get those.

Quote

However, you frequently like to assert that "changing the law" is something that can be done "pretty easily". Applying that proposition here, you can conclude only that the fact that marriage currently confers certain legal benefits does not constitute a principled argument in favour of maintaining the concept of state-licensed marriages, since that law can be changed "pretty easily".

I would never argue such a thing. The post you cite is about whether the legality and the morality of a thing are necessarily intertwined. I even pointed out in that thread that some things which are currently illegal shouldn't be, and some things which currently aren't illegal should be.

The fact that state-licensed marriages exist does not mean that marriages are moral or immoral. The fact that state-licensed marriages are (were) selectively available to only certain groups of citizens is what is immoral. To extend the analogy, drinking fountains aren't immoral (or illegal) but racially segregated drinking fountains are. The legality of the situation has no bearing on whether or not drinking fountains should exist, which is a question best answered by other means. In this case, I would argue that society has used other means to determine that state-licensed marriages should exist, and morality dictates that they should then be available to everyone equally.

Quote

it remains unclear whether marriage is an institution that should exist in a free society.

It may be unclear to you. I don't dispute the institution's deep roots in gender oppression. I might suggest that the way to fix that problem is to grant the privileges of marriage to more people, not abolish the institution entirely. Cotton farming also has a long history of oppression, but we still farm cotton. We just don't do it the horrible way anymore.

Quote

The argument that "contracts are expensive and complicated and marriage is cheap and easy" is counter-factual.

I clearly meant "cheap and easy to enter into" and not "cheap and easy for the state to administer." In Vegas you can get married by a drive-thru Elvis impersonator without ever unbuckling your seatbelt. In virtually every state a wedding license costs less than $100. Easy! Cheap! Legally binding for life!

it remains unclear whether marriage is an institution that should exist in a free society.

It may be unclear to you. I don't dispute the institution's deep roots in gender oppression. I might suggest that the way to fix that problem is to grant the privileges of marriage to more people, not abolish the institution entirely. Cotton farming also has a long history of oppression, but we still farm cotton. We just don't do it the horrible way anymore.

This may be true but then you have to define where you are going to draw the limits of marriage. Polygamy is the first example that comes to mind. Does a person have to marry another human?

The problem with defining limits is that every individual will have their own idea of where those limits should be. Why is changing the laws regarding marriage the preference over changing the laws regarding SS to allow people to designate who should receive their survivor benefits?

This may be true but then you have to define where you are going to draw the limits of marriage. Polygamy is the first example that comes to mind. Does a person have to marry another human?

When dogs, cats, horses, and whatever start paying taxes and communicating with us, or we make contact with intelligent alien life, we can have that discussion. At a contractual level, it requires parties to willingly enter into the arrangement. Non-humans can't do that.

A polygamist marriage option, while I don't have any specific objections to it, seems unworkable from a practical legal standpoint.

The realistic impact will be enrichment at the hands of the public and eventual impeachment, leaving Pence in charge. With all the infighting, there's certain to be gridlock.

I would like to think infighting will slow down the damage. I am not optimistic about that. Trump/Ryan/McConnell are basically on the same page and we are screwed.

I agree. Thanks to Trump, the Republicans control both houses of Congress, the presidency, and are about to rebalance the Supreme Court. They aren't gonna be fighting with him on much.

Don't get me wrong. They'll make sure that their pet projects are pushed through. However, we're already seeing signs of rats-leaving-the-ship syndrome. Whether Trump can stop that is unknown but, given his personality, it's doubtful. With the general disdain that establishment Republicans have for Trump, and the Reality-tv nature of his transition, he may be feuding more with Republicans than Democrats.

This may be true but then you have to define where you are going to draw the limits of marriage. Polygamy is the first example that comes to mind. Does a person have to marry another human?

When dogs, cats, horses, and whatever start paying taxes and communicating with us, or we make contact with intelligent alien life, we can have that discussion. At a contractual level, it requires parties to willingly enter into the arrangement. Non-humans can't do that.

A polygamist marriage option, while I don't have any specific objections to it, seems unworkable from a practical legal standpoint.

I will concede the non-human point but I think I have heard stories of people leaving money to their cats and dogs with instructions on where the animals should be housed, etc. I don’t believe they are willing participants in that contract.

Polygamy is not unworkable. Would it be very difficult, yes, but who is going to deny the right of every person to marry who they want because changing the law/contracts would be difficult?

I will concede the non-human point but I think I have heard stories of people leaving money to their cats and dogs with instructions on where the animals should be housed, etc. I don’t believe they are willing participants in that contract.

Polygamy is not unworkable. Would it be very difficult, yes, but who is going to deny the right of every person to marry who they want because changing the law/contracts would be difficult?

I would be surprised if the cat and dog trustees didn't have human guardians ultimately responsible for the money and fulfillment of the contract. And in most cases, that's non-binding.

As I said, I raise no specific objections to polygamy, and honestly don't care one way or the other.

This thread is about the realistic impacts of Trump as president. The general consensus is that his campaign was primarily bullshit, saying what he needed to say to get in. Epically when it came to the LGBT community rights.

Let me tell you a story. This is a true story, I cannot share names and locations of the people in this story because I need to respect their privacy.

My youngest son is transgender. I do not care to argue your belief in this matter, my opinion and beliefs will not change and neither will yours. Because my son is in the LGBT community, I have gotten involved, very involved. I am a member of several support groups, including a north American support group for gender diverse children.

Now, everyone know Trumps hate speech towards the LCBT community and the promises he has made to revert marriage equality, and even to start shock conversion therapy again. Since the election has ended, with Trump as the president elect, the north American support group has exploded with activity. There has been a total of 15 suicides committed by youth in this group, primarily 16-20 years old ( all but one, who was 14). They have all left notes, and they all say that they have taken their life. The notes are all different, of course, but say basically that with Trump in power, they cannot be who they are anyway. The 1-800 help lines for LGBT youth are jammed full as are those for transgender youth as well. This is a real effect of this election so far. Who gives a fuck about policy, about taxes? Our youth is killing themselves over this.

For those asking who gets to choose what racism is. This is blatant homophobia causing these deaths...

As a parent of two gay teens, the topic of suicide has me very, very worried. I do care about all the other implications in the financial and the environmental sector, but I really care more about the human element. There is a great lack of compassion and empathy spreading through our country. Some groups of people are so much more affected by what they see happening around them and they are scared. The topic of the thread is what are the impacts from a Trump Presidency in the future, but those who are part of minority groups are feeling and have been feeling the wave of anti-compassion and division every day since Trump had decided to run for President.

My daughter saw Nazi symbols spray painted outside the student commons of her college last week. What can you even say to your gay child who goes to school and has to confront symbols of hate. This is just one of many reports of hate crimes committed across the country. My heart goes out to those families who have loved ones who don't feel like they can belong in our society right now. And with the tearing apart of family units that has occurred due to this election, unfortunately many are feeling even more hopeless and isolated right now. I have had to cut off my ties to my family due to this whole mess, which I hated to do. It's a very difficult time in our country right now. So the greatest impacts right now are masses of frightened minority groups and splintering of family units.

This thread is about the realistic impacts of Trump as president. The general consensus is that his campaign was primarily bullshit, saying what he needed to say to get in. Epically when it came to the LGBT community rights.

Let me tell you a story. This is a true story, I cannot share names and locations of the people in this story because I need to respect their privacy.

My youngest son is transgender. I do not care to argue your belief in this matter, my opinion and beliefs will not change and neither will yours. Because my son is in the LGBT community, I have gotten involved, very involved. I am a member of several support groups, including a north American support group for gender diverse children.

Now, everyone know Trumps hate speech towards the LCBT community and the promises he has made to revert marriage equality, and even to start shock conversion therapy again. Since the election has ended, with Trump as the president elect, the north American support group has exploded with activity. There has been a total of 15 suicides committed by youth in this group, primarily 16-20 years old ( all but one, who was 14). They have all left notes, and they all say that they have taken their life. The notes are all different, of course, but say basically that with Trump in power, they cannot be who they are anyway. The 1-800 help lines for LGBT youth are jammed full as are those for transgender youth as well. This is a real effect of this election so far. Who gives a fuck about policy, about taxes? Our youth is killing themselves over this.

For those asking who gets to choose what racism is. This is blatant homophobia causing these deaths...

As a parent of two gay teens, the topic of suicide has me very, very worried. I do care about all the other implications in the financial and the environmental sector, but I really care more about the human element. There is a great lack of compassion and empathy spreading through our country. Some groups of people are so much more affected by what they see happening around them and they are scared. The topic of the thread is what are the impacts from a Trump Presidency in the future, but those who are part of minority groups are feeling and have been feeling the wave of anti-compassion and division every day since Trump had decided to run for President.

My daughter saw Nazi symbols spray painted outside the student commons of her college last week. What can you even say to your gay child who goes to school and has to confront symbols of hate. This is just one of many reports of hate crimes committed across the country. My heart goes out to those families who have loved ones who don't feel like they can belong in our society right now. And with the tearing apart of family units that has occurred due to this election, unfortunately many are feeling even more hopeless and isolated right now. I have had to cut off my ties to my family due to this whole mess, which I hated to do. It's a very difficult time in our country right now. So the greatest impacts right now are masses of frightened minority groups and splintering of family units.

Oh and it can get even worse, what if her RA is a violent supporter and she knows has a key to her dorm room? Or the supervisor etc. College students in dorms often are very vulnerable and we chose to make certain groups even more so.

This thread is about the realistic impacts of Trump as president. The general consensus is that his campaign was primarily bullshit, saying what he needed to say to get in. Epically when it came to the LGBT community rights.

Let me tell you a story. This is a true story, I cannot share names and locations of the people in this story because I need to respect their privacy.

My youngest son is transgender. I do not care to argue your belief in this matter, my opinion and beliefs will not change and neither will yours. Because my son is in the LGBT community, I have gotten involved, very involved. I am a member of several support groups, including a north American support group for gender diverse children.

Now, everyone know Trumps hate speech towards the LCBT community and the promises he has made to revert marriage equality, and even to start shock conversion therapy again. Since the election has ended, with Trump as the president elect, the north American support group has exploded with activity. There has been a total of 15 suicides committed by youth in this group, primarily 16-20 years old ( all but one, who was 14). They have all left notes, and they all say that they have taken their life. The notes are all different, of course, but say basically that with Trump in power, they cannot be who they are anyway. The 1-800 help lines for LGBT youth are jammed full as are those for transgender youth as well. This is a real effect of this election so far. Who gives a fuck about policy, about taxes? Our youth is killing themselves over this.

For those asking who gets to choose what racism is. This is blatant homophobia causing these deaths...

As a parent of two gay teens, the topic of suicide has me very, very worried. I do care about all the other implications in the financial and the environmental sector, but I really care more about the human element. There is a great lack of compassion and empathy spreading through our country. Some groups of people are so much more affected by what they see happening around them and they are scared. The topic of the thread is what are the impacts from a Trump Presidency in the future, but those who are part of minority groups are feeling and have been feeling the wave of anti-compassion and division every day since Trump had decided to run for President.

My daughter saw Nazi symbols spray painted outside the student commons of her college last week. What can you even say to your gay child who goes to school and has to confront symbols of hate. This is just one of many reports of hate crimes committed across the country. My heart goes out to those families who have loved ones who don't feel like they can belong in our society right now. And with the tearing apart of family units that has occurred due to this election, unfortunately many are feeling even more hopeless and isolated right now. I have had to cut off my ties to my family due to this whole mess, which I hated to do. It's a very difficult time in our country right now. So the greatest impacts right now are masses of frightened minority groups and splintering of family units.

Oh and it can get even worse, what if her RA is a violent supporter and she knows has a key to her dorm room? Or the supervisor etc. College students in dorms often are very vulnerable and we chose to make certain groups even more so.

This thread is about the realistic impacts of Trump as president. The general consensus is that his campaign was primarily bullshit, saying what he needed to say to get in. Epically when it came to the LGBT community rights.

Let me tell you a story. This is a true story, I cannot share names and locations of the people in this story because I need to respect their privacy.

My youngest son is transgender. I do not care to argue your belief in this matter, my opinion and beliefs will not change and neither will yours. Because my son is in the LGBT community, I have gotten involved, very involved. I am a member of several support groups, including a north American support group for gender diverse children.

Now, everyone know Trumps hate speech towards the LCBT community and the promises he has made to revert marriage equality, and even to start shock conversion therapy again. Since the election has ended, with Trump as the president elect, the north American support group has exploded with activity. There has been a total of 15 suicides committed by youth in this group, primarily 16-20 years old ( all but one, who was 14). They have all left notes, and they all say that they have taken their life. The notes are all different, of course, but say basically that with Trump in power, they cannot be who they are anyway. The 1-800 help lines for LGBT youth are jammed full as are those for transgender youth as well. This is a real effect of this election so far. Who gives a fuck about policy, about taxes? Our youth is killing themselves over this.

For those asking who gets to choose what racism is. This is blatant homophobia causing these deaths...

As a parent of two gay teens, the topic of suicide has me very, very worried. I do care about all the other implications in the financial and the environmental sector, but I really care more about the human element. There is a great lack of compassion and empathy spreading through our country. Some groups of people are so much more affected by what they see happening around them and they are scared. The topic of the thread is what are the impacts from a Trump Presidency in the future, but those who are part of minority groups are feeling and have been feeling the wave of anti-compassion and division every day since Trump had decided to run for President.

My daughter saw Nazi symbols spray painted outside the student commons of her college last week. What can you even say to your gay child who goes to school and has to confront symbols of hate. This is just one of many reports of hate crimes committed across the country. My heart goes out to those families who have loved ones who don't feel like they can belong in our society right now. And with the tearing apart of family units that has occurred due to this election, unfortunately many are feeling even more hopeless and isolated right now. I have had to cut off my ties to my family due to this whole mess, which I hated to do. It's a very difficult time in our country right now. So the greatest impacts right now are masses of frightened minority groups and splintering of family units.

Oh and it can get even worse, what if her RA is a violent supporter and she knows has a key to her dorm room? Or the supervisor etc. College students in dorms often are very vulnerable and we chose to make certain groups even more so.

I suppose now that a complete white supremacist/anti-Semite/anti-Muslim has been appointed to the inner circle, I think it will be very, very bad. I have been thinking a lot about black swan events, since when you have a narcissist linked up with a person who wants to enact a theocracy, and throw in a couple of new world order people for good measure, you don't need too much of a spark to ignite that. I could see a terrorist attack on US soil occurring, and that being used as an excuse to enact quasi-military rule, or maybe full on military rule. Maybe that's a worst-case scenario. Best case scenario is that there's so much infighting and turnover due to Trump's idea that this is all a reality show where he gets to fire people, little gets done. This already seems to be happening.

I think there will for sure be a strongly conservative SC judge, maybe more than one. Passing actual legislation may be more difficult, with a relatively even Senate and many of the GOP in the senate being more reasonable-all of them knowing they have a reelection bid ahead at some point and are beholden to their entire state rather than just a narrow district of friendlies.

I could see a terrorist attack on US soil occurring, and that being used as an excuse to enact quasi-military rule, or maybe full on military rule.

Hopefully enough of the military would realize that their oath of allegiance is to support and defend the Constitution, and to only obey orders of the President subject to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (along with things like the Geneva Convention, which I assume are incorporated by reference) to prevent that. I'd like to think we'd end up with a civil war (with the military splintered to support both sides) sooner than a military dictatorship.

Multiple current joint chiefs of staff have said they would not carry out torture as Trump advocated at one point (though to be fair he doesn't consider waterboarding to be torture). They'd probably be fired and replaced with someone willing to torture, though.

Re: what to say about symbols of hate on college campus: I was treated by a swastika when I started freshman year in a fairly liberal university in the south. Apparently I was in the nice dorm that rich kids thought was reserved for "their people" as I recall one saying. My parents told me: this is the way the world is. You can either hide, or you can resist by carrying on with your life. Those people will never see you as an equal, but rise above them and it won't matter how they see you. Most bigots don't hate you enough to bother doing anything more than casual nonsense and give up if they encounter resistance. For what it's worth, the guy who drew the swastika on my door was dumb enough to admit it while I recorded and was kicked out.

Multiple current joint chiefs of staff have said they would not carry out torture as Trump advocated at one point (though to be fair he doesn't consider waterboarding to be torture). They'd probably be fired and replaced with someone willing to torture, though.

I don't know if I mentioned here before but you probably don't need to worry about the military. Military officers have 2 methods to employ when encountering illegal or questionable orders. The first is to question and repeat. "Are you sure you want to do that sir? It could cause XXXX". This gives the person giving the orders a chance to take back the order without appearing dumb or you appearing insubordinate.

The other option is to resign. This is the "nuclear option" as you are effectively saying that I would rather quit than carry out that order. There is no mechanism for an officer to refuse and order and still remain in the service.

If you ever see on the news a sizeable number of senior officers resigning in a short time frame, you know something is going on in the administration. Senior officers will carry out orders they do not agree with all the time, but if it rises to a point that you think it is illegal or immoral, there are only the two options above.

Multiple current joint chiefs of staff have said they would not carry out torture as Trump advocated at one point (though to be fair he doesn't consider waterboarding to be torture). They'd probably be fired and replaced with someone willing to torture, though.

I don't know if I mentioned here before but you probably don't need to worry about the military. Military officers have 2 methods to employ when encountering illegal or questionable orders. The first is to question and repeat. "Are you sure you want to do that sir? It could cause XXXX". This gives the person giving the orders a chance to take back the order without appearing dumb or you appearing insubordinate.

The other option is to resign. This is the "nuclear option" as you are effectively saying that I would rather quit than carry out that order. There is no mechanism for an officer to refuse and order and still remain in the service.

If you ever see on the news a sizeable number of senior officers resigning in a short time frame, you know something is going on in the administration. Senior officers will carry out orders they do not agree with all the time, but if it rises to a point that you think it is illegal or immoral, there are only the two options above.

I think the issue with this is that resigning does not stop the irder being carried out. As Jack pointed out, the next in command is just asked to do the same thing, over and iver again until someone is found who will do it. It's happened before in administrations.

Logged

Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

Multiple current joint chiefs of staff have said they would not carry out torture as Trump advocated at one point (though to be fair he doesn't consider waterboarding to be torture). They'd probably be fired and replaced with someone willing to torture, though.

I don't know if I mentioned here before but you probably don't need to worry about the military. Military officers have 2 methods to employ when encountering illegal or questionable orders. The first is to question and repeat. "Are you sure you want to do that sir? It could cause XXXX". This gives the person giving the orders a chance to take back the order without appearing dumb or you appearing insubordinate.

The other option is to resign. This is the "nuclear option" as you are effectively saying that I would rather quit than carry out that order. There is no mechanism for an officer to refuse and order and still remain in the service.

If you ever see on the news a sizeable number of senior officers resigning in a short time frame, you know something is going on in the administration. Senior officers will carry out orders they do not agree with all the time, but if it rises to a point that you think it is illegal or immoral, there are only the two options above.

I think the issue with this is that resigning does not stop the irder being carried out. As Jack pointed out, the next in command is just asked to do the same thing, over and iver again until someone is found who will do it. It's happened before in administrations.

You are right, it will probably happen. But a couple of generals in a row resigning because they are being asked to do something wrong is a big sign to the person doing the asking, the rest of the military, and the public. That is big attention when the order is to do something shady that might not otherwise be in the public eye like setting up a torture factory or dropping bombs on the families and neighbors of suspected terrorists.

Multiple current joint chiefs of staff have said they would not carry out torture as Trump advocated at one point (though to be fair he doesn't consider waterboarding to be torture). They'd probably be fired and replaced with someone willing to torture, though.

I don't know if I mentioned here before but you probably don't need to worry about the military. Military officers have 2 methods to employ when encountering illegal or questionable orders. The first is to question and repeat. "Are you sure you want to do that sir? It could cause XXXX". This gives the person giving the orders a chance to take back the order without appearing dumb or you appearing insubordinate.

The other option is to resign. This is the "nuclear option" as you are effectively saying that I would rather quit than carry out that order. There is no mechanism for an officer to refuse and order and still remain in the service.

If you ever see on the news a sizeable number of senior officers resigning in a short time frame, you know something is going on in the administration. Senior officers will carry out orders they do not agree with all the time, but if it rises to a point that you think it is illegal or immoral, there are only the two options above.

I think the issue with this is that resigning does not stop the irder being carried out. As Jack pointed out, the next in command is just asked to do the same thing, over and iver again until someone is found who will do it. It's happened before in administrations.

You are right, it will probably happen. But a couple of generals in a row resigning because they are being asked to do something wrong is a big sign to the person doing the asking, the rest of the military, and the public. That is big attention when the order is to do something shady that might not otherwise be in the public eye like setting up a torture factory or dropping bombs on the families and neighbors of suspected terrorists.

But for an unreasonable person, who does not care about his immorality, resigning does no good.

Another prediction: The new AG, Sessions, is against marijuana. Expect federal drug laws to be enforced harshly.

It will be fun to see the gymnastics required to say that abortion laws should be decided on a state by state basis but not drug laws.

I love States rights people wanting everything to be settled by the States... except for things they want to happen everywhere.

It will also be fun to see them go against the popular will of people in several swings states with regards to Mary Jane. I think their desire to jail more poor and minority people will override any political cost that might be associated with this.

Another prediction: The new AG, Sessions, is against marijuana. Expect federal drug laws to be enforced harshly.

It will be fun to see the gymnastics required to say that abortion laws should be decided on a state by state basis but not drug laws.

I love States rights people wanting everything to be settled by the States... except for things they want to happen everywhere.

It will also be fun to see them go against the popular will of people in several swings states with regards to Mary Jane. I think their desire to jail more poor and minority people will override any political cost that might be associated with this.

This, to me, is one of the greatest potential tragedies of a Trump presidency. Anyone who supports for-profit prisons supports evil. Full stop. Finally ridding our society of that disgrace would have been among the most laudable legacies of the Obama administration. So it goes.

It will also be fun to see them go against the popular will of people in several swings states with regards to Mary Jane. I think their desire to jail more poor and minority people will override any political cost that might be associated with this.

Like virtually everything else in the GOP platform, this should have negligible impact on me, as a wealthy suburban white professional married man. I can totally see why so many people like me support these policies, which may be bad for other people but really don't affect me much. Empathy? What's that?

This, to me, is one of the greatest potential tragedies of a Trump presidency. Anyone who supports for-profit prisons supports evil. Full stop. Finally ridding our society of that disgrace would have been among the most laudable legacies of the Obama administration. So it goes.

Yes. To me, it is obvious that certain things should not be driven by the profit motive and hence why we need a government:

Sadly, I may have been influenced by the socialist democracy of my upbringing (Canada) and may just be brainwashed. I'm sure capitalism actually does the above better.... Just look at the US! Prisons are for profit and you guys jail people at a higher rate than any other country in the world! Success!

Another prediction: The new AG, Sessions, is against marijuana. Expect federal drug laws to be enforced harshly.

It will be fun to see the gymnastics required to say that abortion laws should be decided on a state by state basis but not drug laws.

I love States rights people wanting everything to be settled by the States... except for things they want to happen everywhere.

It will also be fun to see them go against the popular will of people in several swings states with regards to Mary Jane. I think their desire to jail more poor and minority people will override any political cost that might be associated with this.

This, to me, is one of the greatest potential tragedies of a Trump presidency. Anyone who supports for-profit prisons supports evil. Full stop. Finally ridding our society of that disgrace would have been among the most laudable legacies of the Obama administration. So it goes.

There are a lot of things Obama could have done that would have been great. Unfortunately, he was unable to push through on some things that would really have made positive change in the country.

As far as drug legalization; I could see Trump bowing to the tobacco lobbies - they are uniquely set up to capitalize on MJ distribution on a large scale, and he may be able to fit it in as a large source of federal tax revenue.

Logged

Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

Of course. Because there were only ever two options for the Republicans on this, if they gained control:

1) "Repeal" Obamacare but in reality just tweak a couple of things, because there's no way to keep the preexisting conditions and keeping kids on their parents' plans until 26 unless the rest of the plan is in place. Make a couple of minor changes, tout them as amazing improvements that remove government overreach, and rename it "Trumpcare" or something.

2) Repeal it completely, and hope their supporters are too busy consuming fake news to notice.

Logged

Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Of course. Because there were only ever two options for the Republicans on this, if they gained control:

1) "Repeal" Obamacare but in reality just tweak a couple of things, because there's no way to keep the preexisting conditions and keeping kids on their parents' plans until 26 unless the rest of the plan is in place. Make a couple of minor changes, tout them as amazing improvements that remove government overreach, and rename it "Trumpcare" or something.

2) Repeal it completely, and hope their supporters are too busy consuming fake news to notice.

Would that be the worst thing in the world to improve the ACA? Who cares who gets credit for it. (I mean, besides Barack Obama and Donald Trump) if its better than it was, its a win for everybody.

Logged

Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

Of course. Because there were only ever two options for the Republicans on this, if they gained control:

1) "Repeal" Obamacare but in reality just tweak a couple of things, because there's no way to keep the preexisting conditions and keeping kids on their parents' plans until 26 unless the rest of the plan is in place. Make a couple of minor changes, tout them as amazing improvements that remove government overreach, and rename it "Trumpcare" or something.

2) Repeal it completely, and hope their supporters are too busy consuming fake news to notice.

Would that be the worst thing in the world to improve the ACA? Who cares who gets credit for it. (I mean, besides Barack Obama and Donald Trump) if its better than it was, its a win for everybody.

Obama himself has said he predicts they will make cosmetic changes and re-brand it without his name, at which point Republicans will be miraculously in favor of it. Obama understands what is really going on. And he has said he's all for it. Because he actually gives a shit what happens to uninsured people.

Logged

Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

The neo-nazis alt-right will have a conference in DC blocks from the Holocaust museum. Their leader, Richard Spencer, will proclaim "Hail Trump!" and the attendees will give the Nazi salute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute).

The neo-nazis alt-right will have a conference in DC blocks from the Holocaust museum. Their leader, Richard Spencer, will proclaim "Hail Trump!" and the attendees will give the Nazi salute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute).

The neo-nazis alt-right will have a conference in DC blocks from the Holocaust museum. Their leader, Richard Spencer, will proclaim "Hail Trump!" and the attendees will give the Nazi salute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute).

The neo-nazis alt-right will have a conference in DC blocks from the Holocaust museum. Their leader, Richard Spencer, will proclaim "Hail Trump!" and the attendees will give the Nazi salute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute).

I'm no Trump supporter, but I would like to believe the heil Trump and nazi salute people are an emboldened fringe element.

But we've seen so many people on these very pages claim that Trump is not racist that this sort of thing is absolutely relevant. Even if you yourself don't think you are racist, you have to realize that some hardcore racists are thrilled about Trump's election because they think he is racist and that Americans voted for him because they are racist. Remember that when you think of your minority friends and try to understand the unease they feel.

There is definitely an active resurgence of open racism in America today due to Trump. You can pretend you don't support it, but you have to at least see it. If you voted for him, this is at least partly on your shoulders.

There is definitely an active resurgence of open racism in America today due to Trump. You can pretend you don't support it, but you have to at least see it. If you voted for him, this is at least partly on your shoulders.

I agree with you about the part I bolded above, but I'm also certain that just about every one of those who voted for Trump do not give one fuck about it. I won't be asking the people I know who voted for Trump, but I can accurately foresee their responses. It would be something along the lines of "Oh, that's just a whole lot of nothing, don't get all worked up about it." That is, it would be the same mentality in voting for him in the first place: Ignore all the glaring and horrible deficits in Trump, and vote for him because he tells it like it is to Make America Great Again.

Starting off on a good foot with the press - yesterday Trump met with news staffers and executives and ended up chiding them over their bad coverage - including bad photos that emphasized his double chin -- really!

This morning he tweeted that he canceled a meeting with the "nasty" NYT because they were making unfair demands. The NYT quickly clarified that Trump wanted to cancel and on-the-record meeting with reporters and the NYTs would not meet his demands of off-the-record. Trump re-tweeted and relented to the on-the-record requirement.

There is definitely an active resurgence of open racism in America today due to Trump. You can pretend you don't support it, but you have to at least see it. If you voted for him, this is at least partly on your shoulders.

I agree with you about the part I bolded above, but I'm also certain that just about every one of those who voted for Trump do not give one fuck about it. I won't be asking the people I know who voted for Trump, but I can accurately foresee their responses. It would be something along the lines of "Oh, that's just a whole lot of nothing, don't get all worked up about it." That is, it would be the same mentality in voting for him in the first place: Ignore all the glaring and horrible deficits in Trump, and vote for him because he tells it like it is to Make America Great Again.

So far, the response is along the lines of:

1) no, trump never said or implied anything racist and any evidence you supply is typical left wing hysteria2) you don't get it, calling trump supporters racist is exactly why we voted for trump because you hurt our feelings and we are tired of it

Starting off on a good foot with the press - yesterday Trump met with news staffers and executives and ended up chiding them over their bad coverage - including bad photos that emphasized his double chin -- really!

This morning he tweeted that he canceled a meeting with the "nasty" NYT because they were making unfair demands. The NYT quickly clarified that Trump wanted to cancel and on-the-record meeting with reporters and the NYTs would not meet his demands of off-the-record. Trump re-tweeted and relented to the on-the-record requirement.

Oh brother.

Very, very concerning. Trump not understanding/caring what one of the most fundamental freedoms of the United States IS, is deeply concerning. The weird use of tweets, as well. I still can't understand how someone who can't really handle Twitter is supposed to handle...anything else.

Starting off on a good foot with the press - yesterday Trump met with news staffers and executives and ended up chiding them over their bad coverage - including bad photos that emphasized his double chin -- really!

This morning he tweeted that he canceled a meeting with the "nasty" NYT because they were making unfair demands. The NYT quickly clarified that Trump wanted to cancel and on-the-record meeting with reporters and the NYTs would not meet his demands of off-the-record. Trump re-tweeted and relented to the on-the-record requirement.

Oh brother.

Very, very concerning. Trump not understanding/caring what one of the most fundamental freedoms of the United States IS, is deeply concerning. The weird use of tweets, as well. I still can't understand how someone who can't really handle Twitter is supposed to handle...anything else.

I at least had some hope that he would be humbled by the position. He looked a bit scared after his meeting with Obama at the WH, but, as expected this has worn off. The guy has a huge ego and a thin skin. Add in his lack of world knowledge - and we'll see what mess he makes of things shortly.

The meeting took place in a big boardroom and there were about 30 or 40 people, including the big news anchors from all the networks,” the other source said.

“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful, dishonest media who got it all wrong.’ He addressed everyone in the room, calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars,” the source said.

“Trump didn’t say [NBC reporter] Katy Tur by name, but talked about an NBC female correspondent who got it wrong, then he referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when Hillary lost who hosted a debate — which was Martha Raddatz, who was also in the room.”

The stunned reporters tried to get a word in edgewise to discuss access to a Trump administration.

The guy has a huge ego and a thin skin. Add in his lack of world knowledge - and we'll see what mess he makes of things shortly.

I think I already mentioned in this or another thread that Professor Allan Lichtman, who developed a methodology for accurately predicting presidential winners every single time over the last 3 or 4 decades, correctly picked Trump to win when every other poll and pundit (including the hallowed Nate Silver) and indicator said Clinton would win. I laughed at it at the time, thinking "Well dude, sorry your methodology is going to suffer its first loss in 40 years." He also predicted Trump would be impeached by his own Republican party within about 2 years. Now I've tried not to hang too much hope on this, but I actually can see it happening. Not that a Pence presidency would be any fun, but it would at least be about the best Schadenfreude ever to watch Trump go down in disgrace.